Rivers v. University of San Francisco

Background

Keith Rivers sued the University of San Francisco under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging employment discrimination based on race and sex. The opinion states that Rivers became a University employee in or around September 2018. He was elected Graduate Student Senator Representative for the School of Education and appointed to the Board of Trustees’ Academic Affairs Committee as the only Graduate Student Representative on campus. The parties agreed that he would hold those positions from September 2018 through May 2019.

Rivers alleged that the University disabled his email account on March 1, 2019, in retaliation for a lawsuit he had filed on February 4, 2019. He also alleged that he could not access his online classes despite having paid tuition for the 2019 spring semester. He sought relief based on alleged unfair disciplinary actions, denial of ongoing growth and training, and termination or firing.

Screening standard

The court had granted Rivers permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and then screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires the court to dismiss a case at this stage if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that this review uses the same basic standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must include enough factual content to make liability plausible, rather than merely possible.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that a Title VII employment-discrimination claim requires allegations showing that the plaintiff belongs to a protected class, performed the job satisfactorily, suffered an adverse employment decision, and was treated differently from similarly situated people outside the protected class.

The court concluded that Rivers’s complaint did not plausibly allege discrimination. The form complaint contained no factual allegations about incidents of race- or sex-based discrimination; it only included checked boxes identifying race or color and sex as the alleged bases for discrimination. The court also concluded that Rivers had not plausibly alleged retaliation because he did not explain what the February 2019 lawsuit concerned or identify whom he had sued.

Disposition

The court concluded that the complaint failed Section 1915 review. It allowed Rivers to file an amended complaint within 30 days, requiring him to identify his claims and include a plain statement of facts supporting them. The order does not expressly state that the complaint was dismissed; it states that the complaint failed screening and provides an opportunity to amend.